Will desktop Linux ever grow up?

"The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed initiatives,
and a desperate need to please way too many interested parties. In other
words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and takes responsibility
for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing environment -- it'll
never be taken seriously by IT."

Advertisements

"Allistar" <> wrote in message
news:...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>
>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and
>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing
>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>
> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I use
> to
> be quite stable.
> --

"And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC was
using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently, the
resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if X.org
crashes - so do all of your applications. "

Advertisements

"Allistar" <> wrote in message
news:...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>>>
>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and
>>>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>> windowing
>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>
>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I use
>>> to
>>> be quite stable.
>>> --
>>
>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>
>>
> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_Windows_7
>>
>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently,
>> the
>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if X.org
>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>
> I've never had that problem before.

Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a world in
which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience yourself.
In this case, count yourself lucky.
> And "crashing all of your applications"
> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
> --

Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications. Should
it?

On Aug 26, 12:51 pm, Allistar <> wrote:
> impossible wrote:
>
> > "Allistar" <> wrote in message
> >news:...
> >> impossible wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>
> >>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
> >>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
> >>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
> >>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and
> >>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing
> >>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>
> >> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I use
> >> to
> >> be quite stable.
> >> --
>
> > Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>
> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_...
>
>
>
> > "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
> > was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently, the
> > resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
> > educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if X.org
> > crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>
> I've never had that problem before. And "crashing all of your applications"
> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
> --
> A.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL - that's terrible design. Holy crap, so if a graphics driver fails
it shuts down anything that is using it? What the hell.

"Allistar" <> wrote in message
news:...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good.
>>>>>> Its
>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up
>>>>>> and takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I
>>>>> use to
>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_Windows_7
>>>>
>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently,
>>>> the
>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>> X.org
>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>
>>> I've never had that problem before.
>>
>> Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a world
>> in
>> which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience
>> yourself. In this case, count yourself lucky.
>
> I'm merely commenting on my own experiences. What experiences do you have
> on
> the stability of window managers in Linux?
>

I don't need direct experience with a system to understand why it's unstable
and why I wouldn't want to use it. Not since I learned to read.
>>> And "crashing all of your applications"
>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>
>> Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications.
>> Should it?
>
> X applications rely on X to be running. If X stops running then the X
> applications will stop running to (but the non X ones won't). Just like
> with Windows - if the window manager (or whatever the equivalent is
> called)
> dies, then all running apps would die too I would expect.
> --

No, they wouldn't -- not in Vista and not in Winodws 7. Maybe Linux can
learn something there.

"Bret" <> wrote in message
news:1ubfz1ods5i29$...
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:16:26 -0700 (PDT), Bobs wrote:
>
>> On Aug 26, 12:51 pm, Allistar <> wrote:
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>>
>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good.
>>>>>> Its
>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>
>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I
>>>>> use
>>>>> to
>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>> --
>>>
>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>
>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently,
>>>> the
>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>> X.org
>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>
>>> I've never had that problem before. And "crashing all of your
>>> applications"
>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>> --
>>> A.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> LOL - that's terrible design. Holy crap, so if a graphics driver fails
>> it shuts down anything that is using it? What the hell.
>
> What driver are you refering to.

impossible wrote:
>
> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own
>>>>>>> good. Its
>>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up
>>>>>>> and takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I
>>>>>> use to
>>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_Windows_7
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo.
>>>>> VLC
>>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently,
>>>>> the
>>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>>> X.org
>>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>>
>>>> I've never had that problem before.
>>>
>>> Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a
>>> world in
>>> which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience
>>> yourself. In this case, count yourself lucky.
>>
>> I'm merely commenting on my own experiences. What experiences do you
>> have on
>> the stability of window managers in Linux?
>>
>
> I don't need direct experience with a system to understand why it's
> unstable and why I wouldn't want to use it. Not since I learned to read.
>
>>>> And "crashing all of your applications"
>>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>>
>>> Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications.
>>> Should it?
>>
>> X applications rely on X to be running. If X stops running then the X
>> applications will stop running to (but the non X ones won't). Just like
>> with Windows - if the window manager (or whatever the equivalent is
>> called)
>> dies, then all running apps would die too I would expect.
>> --
>
> No, they wouldn't -- not in Vista and not in Winodws 7. Maybe Linux can
> learn something there.

Bobs wrote:
> On Aug 26, 12:51 pm, Allistar <> wrote:
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and
>>>>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing
>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I use
>>>> to
>>>> be quite stable.
>>>> --
>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_...
>>
>>
>>
>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently, the
>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if X.org
>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>> I've never had that problem before. And "crashing all of your applications"
>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>> --
>> A.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> LOL - that's terrible design. Holy crap, so if a graphics driver fails
> it shuts down anything that is using it? What the hell.

Windows has crashed for some guy somewhere too. guess its a big pile of poo.

"victor" <> wrote in message
news:h7280h$1hq$-september.org...
> Bobs wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 12:51 pm, Allistar <> wrote:
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good.
>>>>>> Its
>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I
>>>>> use
>>>>> to
>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>> --
>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo. VLC
>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to. Apparently,
>>>> the
>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>> X.org
>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>> I've never had that problem before. And "crashing all of your
>>> applications"
>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>> --
>>> A.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> LOL - that's terrible design. Holy crap, so if a graphics driver fails
>> it shuts down anything that is using it? What the hell.
>
> Windows has crashed for some guy somewhere too. guess its a big pile of
> poo.
>
> CAN WE GET SOME ADULTS IN HERE FOR FUCKS SAKE !!!!!!!

"Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
news:h727oa$m9i$-september.org...
> impossible wrote:
>>
>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good.
>>>>>>>> Its
>>>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many interested
>>>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up
>>>>>>>> and takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment I
>>>>>>> use to
>>>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_Windows_7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo.
>>>>>> VLC
>>>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to.
>>>>>> Apparently,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>>>> X.org
>>>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never had that problem before.
>>>>
>>>> Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a world
>>>> in
>>>> which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience
>>>> yourself. In this case, count yourself lucky.
>>>
>>> I'm merely commenting on my own experiences. What experiences do you
>>> have on
>>> the stability of window managers in Linux?
>>>
>>
>> I don't need direct experience with a system to understand why it's
>> unstable and why I wouldn't want to use it. Not since I learned to read.
>>
>>>>> And "crashing all of your applications"
>>>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications.
>>>> Should it?
>>>
>>> X applications rely on X to be running. If X stops running then the X
>>> applications will stop running to (but the non X ones won't). Just like
>>> with Windows - if the window manager (or whatever the equivalent is
>>> called)
>>> dies, then all running apps would die too I would expect.
>>> --
>>
>> No, they wouldn't -- not in Vista and not in Winodws 7. Maybe Linux can
>> learn something there.
>
> What's a bsod impossible?

On Aug 26, 12:08 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>
> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed initiatives,
> and a desperate need to please way too many interested parties. In other
> words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and takes responsibility
> for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing environment -- it'll
> never be taken seriously by IT."

impossible wrote:
>
> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
> news:h727oa$m9i$-september.org...
>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own
>>>>>>>>> good. Its
>>>>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many
>>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it
>>>>>>>>> grows up
>>>>>>>>> and takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a stable
>>>>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing
>>>>>>>> environment I
>>>>>>>> use to
>>>>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_Windows_7
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog
>>>>>>> poo. VLC
>>>>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to.
>>>>>>> Apparently,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all you
>>>>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget:
>>>>>>> if X.org
>>>>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never had that problem before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a
>>>>> world in
>>>>> which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience
>>>>> yourself. In this case, count yourself lucky.
>>>>
>>>> I'm merely commenting on my own experiences. What experiences do you
>>>> have on
>>>> the stability of window managers in Linux?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't need direct experience with a system to understand why it's
>>> unstable and why I wouldn't want to use it. Not since I learned to
>>> read.
>>>
>>>>>> And "crashing all of your applications"
>>>>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications.
>>>>> Should it?
>>>>
>>>> X applications rely on X to be running. If X stops running then the X
>>>> applications will stop running to (but the non X ones won't). Just like
>>>> with Windows - if the window manager (or whatever the equivalent is
>>>> called)
>>>> dies, then all running apps would die too I would expect.
>>>> --
>>>
>>> No, they wouldn't -- not in Vista and not in Winodws 7. Maybe Linux
>>> can learn something there.
>>
>> What's a bsod impossible?
>
> I don;t know. Does Linux blue-screen when the windowing system fails?

I'd like to be able to answer that, but I've never had a windowing
system fail on me.

"AD." <> wrote in message
news:...
On Aug 26, 12:08 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>
>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>> initiatives,
>> and a desperate need to please way too many interested parties. In other
>> words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and takes
>> responsibility
>> for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing environment -- it'll
>> never be taken seriously by IT."
> Who the **** cares

So far, more than the number of people who have ever taken in an interest
in anything you've said.

"Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
news:h728jf$o5h$-september.org...
> impossible wrote:
>>
>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
>> news:h727oa$m9i$-september.org...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own
>>>>>>>>>> good. Its
>>>>>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many
>>>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows
>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>> and takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a
>>>>>>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing environment
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> use to
>>>>>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_Windows_7
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog poo.
>>>>>>>> VLC
>>>>>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to.
>>>>>>>> Apparently,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as all
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget: if
>>>>>>>> X.org
>>>>>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've never had that problem before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a
>>>>>> world in
>>>>>> which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience
>>>>>> yourself. In this case, count yourself lucky.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm merely commenting on my own experiences. What experiences do you
>>>>> have on
>>>>> the stability of window managers in Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't need direct experience with a system to understand why it's
>>>> unstable and why I wouldn't want to use it. Not since I learned to
>>>> read.
>>>>
>>>>>>> And "crashing all of your applications"
>>>>>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications.
>>>>>> Should it?
>>>>>
>>>>> X applications rely on X to be running. If X stops running then the X
>>>>> applications will stop running to (but the non X ones won't). Just
>>>>> like
>>>>> with Windows - if the window manager (or whatever the equivalent is
>>>>> called)
>>>>> dies, then all running apps would die too I would expect.
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> No, they wouldn't -- not in Vista and not in Winodws 7. Maybe Linux can
>>>> learn something there.
>>>
>>> What's a bsod impossible?
>>
>> I don;t know. Does Linux blue-screen when the windowing system fails?
>
> I'd like to be able to answer that, but I've never had a windowing system
> fail on me.
>
>
> However google was helpful with my question:
> http://www.google.co.nz/search?sour...od vista&btnG=Google Search&meta=lr=&aq=f&oq=
> (Note the third link)
>

impossible wrote:
>
> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
> news:h728jf$o5h$-september.org...
>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
>>> news:h727oa$m9i$-september.org...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own
>>>>>>>>>>> good. Its
>>>>>>>>>>> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed
>>>>>>>>>>> initiatives, and a desperate need to please way too many
>>>>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>>>> parties. In other words, Linux is a teenager. And until it
>>>>>>>>>>> grows up
>>>>>>>>>>> and takes responsibility for the basics -- like providing a
>>>>>>>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>>>>> windowing
>>>>>>>>>>> environment -- it'll never be taken seriously by IT."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm "IT" and I take it seriously. I find the windowing
>>>>>>>>>> environment I
>>>>>>>>>> use to
>>>>>>>>>> be quite stable.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmmm...."quite stable". Like this, you mean?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_from_Vista_Windows_7
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "And here we see why the X.org stack is a steaming pile of dog
>>>>>>>>> poo. VLC
>>>>>>>>> was using the XVideo output, which is what it defaults to.
>>>>>>>>> Apparently,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> resize operating crashed XVideo. Which crashed X.org. And as
>>>>>>>>> all you
>>>>>>>>> educated Linux geeks know but some of you might want to forget:
>>>>>>>>> if X.org
>>>>>>>>> crashes - so do all of your applications. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've never had that problem before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does this always have to be about you, Allistar? Try to imagine a
>>>>>>> world in
>>>>>>> which many things happen that you don't actually get to experience
>>>>>>> yourself. In this case, count yourself lucky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm merely commenting on my own experiences. What experiences do
>>>>>> you have on
>>>>>> the stability of window managers in Linux?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't need direct experience with a system to understand why it's
>>>>> unstable and why I wouldn't want to use it. Not since I learned to
>>>>> read.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And "crashing all of your applications"
>>>>>>>> should be "crashing all of your X applications".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, actually it **shouldn't** be crashing all your X applications.
>>>>>>> Should it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> X applications rely on X to be running. If X stops running then the X
>>>>>> applications will stop running to (but the non X ones won't). Just
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> with Windows - if the window manager (or whatever the equivalent
>>>>>> is called)
>>>>>> dies, then all running apps would die too I would expect.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they wouldn't -- not in Vista and not in Winodws 7. Maybe Linux
>>>>> can learn something there.
>>>>
>>>> What's a bsod impossible?
>>>
>>> I don;t know. Does Linux blue-screen when the windowing system fails?
>>
>> I'd like to be able to answer that, but I've never had a windowing
>> system fail on me.
>>
>>
>> However google was helpful with my question:
>> http://www.google.co.nz/search?sour...od vista&btnG=Google Search&meta=lr=&aq=f&oq=
>>
>> (Note the third link)
>>
>
> Hmmm.. you're looking desperate with forum posts from June 2006, before
> Vista was even released. And what's that other site?
> vistabluescreen.com? Good one, troll.
>

Desperation?
> You do realize that Windows 7 won't be released
> until October.
>

October is just over 5 weeks away, are you telling me that the bsod will
not exist then?
> Did you seriously think you were going to get away with another Larry
> D'Loser con job here?
>
con job? You were the one who claimed not to know what a bsod is.
> Slink away now before you get hurt.

On Aug 26, 3:05 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
> > Who the **** cares
>
> So far, more than the number of people who have ever taken in an interest
> in anything you've said.

Yeah, maybe I should start posting inane trolls so I can be as popular
as you and Larry are.

Your posts are the mirror image of Larrys (hence the "who the ****
cares" reply). It seems you both were conjoint twins joined at the
head. After the operation to separate you, you both ended up with one
eye and half a brain.

On 2009-08-26, impossible <> wrote:
> http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/will-desktop-linux-ever-grow-911
>
> "The bottom line: Linux is still too hyperactive for its own good. Its
> development process is plagued by false starts, half-completed initiatives,
> and a desperate need to please way too many interested parties. In other
> words, Linux is a teenager. And until it grows up and takes responsibility
> for the basics -- like providing a stable windowing environment -- it'll
> never be taken seriously by IT."
>

Darn, are we back in 1970 something.

Ms Penguin does get lost at times and goes right into the jungle, gets lost
and realises that that was not the way to the fish in the sea.

The X Window envioronment has been crash free for me in 15 odd years of
using it.

Pleasing interested parties, nope.

a) Lets try this and see if it flies

no it does not for them, meanwhile some woman has grabbed the code and
after some alteration it flies, but not soars. Now more people join in.

b) Is this not the $$$ world we have. Plaese the customer and $$$$ in ones
wallet.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:02:09 +1200, Sailor Sam wrote:
>> I don;t know. Does Linux blue-screen when the windowing system fails?
>
> I'd like to be able to answer that, but I've never had a windowing
> system fail on me.

Neither have I.

The only time the OS on my desktop box has ever given me any problems is when It had hardware
failure.

AD. wrote:
> On Aug 26, 3:05 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
>>> Who the **** cares
>> So far, more than the number of people who have ever taken in an interest
>> in anything you've said.
>
> Yeah, maybe I should start posting inane trolls so I can be as popular
> as you and Larry are.
>
> Your posts are the mirror image of Larrys (hence the "who the ****
> cares" reply). It seems you both were conjoint twins joined at the
> head. After the operation to separate you, you both ended up with one
> eye and half a brain.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Anton

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!